Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:


Didn't you just say it wasn't a closed environment Hats? In that vacuum, the self destructive environment would succeed. But it's not a vaccuum.

In an openness/closeness of the environment doesn't matter. Self-destructive behavior is still self-destructive. The behaviors aren't self-destructive as much as they are self-perpetuating. The poor tend to stay poor, one generation to the next, not because they're ruining their own chances but because the chances aren't available to them. Their educations are poor because they don't have the money and the brilliance of policies like No Child Left behind. Their underpaid and overworked which comes from the economy at large. Our culture/media tells them their weak and stupid for not being successful.

Most people in that situation don't have the time, money, or education to escape so they end up with behaviors that function at the level they're in (and that's not just african americans, its the poor overall). That environment isn't the product of one group its the product of our society. We create that environment for underprivileged as much as they create it for themselves. Not on purpose, that's just the way the gears of the system end up turning.

Except your not factoring in the fact that the outside is propping it up, and helping to perpetuate it.

We do it all over the world. Look at Africa. That place should have imploded years ago, but we keep supplying them with jut enough to keep it from going full tilt crazy.

 djones520 wrote:
Except your not factoring in the fact that the outside is propping it up, and helping to perpetuate it.

I just said that... Right here;

That environment isn't the product of one group its the product of our society

That place should have imploded years ago, but we keep supplying them with jut enough to keep it from going full tilt crazy.

So we should give ourselves a pat on the back for taking up our white/rich(?) man's burden then? Well don't we feel special not doing anything while pretending we've done everything we can. Ignoring that a bunch of poor kids living in downtown Chicago don't live in Africa.

Putting words in my mouth?

What I was trying to say is that self destructive environment probably would have imploded, and maybe grown into something new, had we just completely left it alone. But we won't because we're human and we'll do whatever we can to help, even if it's the worse thing possible.

Nice way to make this a thing about racial superiority though.

 djones520 wrote:
Putting words in my mouth?

You're the one talking about how we keep the poor people in Africa from going to gak not me.

What I was trying to say is that self destructive environment probably would have imploded, and maybe grown into something new,

You should watch Code Geass. LeLouch of the Rebellion is totally behind watching millions of people die in a juvenile attempt to fix a problem that won't be fixed by letting millions of people die. We don't even help Africa that much. If anything some of the things we do make things worse.

And again. A poor kid in downtown Chicago doesn't live in the Congo (unless there's another Chicago in the Congo )

Nice way to make this a thing about racial superiority though.

You said it not me I mean really. Right here;

That place should have imploded years ago, but we keep supplying them with jut enough to keep it from going full tilt crazy.

I didn't say that you did. You can pretend the sentiment is something else, but it is what it is.

I never once mentioned race for one, you did.

Yes, we don't do a lot. Like I said, we do just enough to keep the system going, not change it. And yes, some of the things we do, do make it worse, as I also said. So thank you for reiterating my points.

I was also just pointing at Africa as a good example, but we could point to South Chicago, East St. Louis, Detroit, Watts, etc... if you'd like.

 djones520 wrote:
I never once mentioned race for one, you did.

Its the same thing. You can pretend it isn't, but it is. We dress up the problem as something else that is easier/more PC to ignore and go on ignoring it. Saying we prop up poor neighborhoods in the US (or Africa, or wherever) and save them from being more like a living hell is just a veiled reference you throw out to justify ignoring the problem/pretending it doesn't exist/isn't your problem anymore.

I'm actually fine with the last of those options. People don't care about a lot of things, but they can at least be honest about it.

I was also just pointing at Africa as a good example, but we could point to South Chicago, East St. Louis, Detroit, Watts, etc... if you'd like.

Africa is none of those places. Solving problems of poverty, discrimination, poor education, and their perpetuation in our own country is very different from trying to do it on another continent.

 Jihadin wrote:

I did it because there literally was no jobs in my area to make it worth my wild. Let's look at the minorities in this country. How are they influence and what their perception is. Why go into a life of regimentation while I can go "Gangsta" or play's the system to their advantage. Why get paid and have taxes on it compare to getting paid under the table.

The reasons you would that I can think of:
Gangsta life probably still more dangerous.
Pay relatively unreliable.
Unsustainable in the long term.

If I can come up with those good reasons why not to, why can't someone of the "gangsta" persuasion? One thing I have read about is the notion of abuse and criminal activity being genetically hereditary. This is interesting, but troubling at the same time. Persecuting people because they may have a gene that encourages violence is not a thing I ever want to see in society.

That "White Privilege" irks me like the "N-word" (title). Its outdated and a throwback to...say...1950ish till I say late 80ish..90ish on I going to say this probably apply's to everyone now. those that think they are "privilege". Like the world owes them something for nothing. Example be the 15-20 dollar an hour burger flipper. The entitlements are being abused left and right, up and down, and 12 ways to Sunday. We're like on the same sheet of music. I just think they really really need to update the policy and verify it all....dang I loss my frame of mind on this..

I don't care much for the term either, but I can't suggest a better one. I'm not quite sure that's the word I'd compare it to. The interesting thing about the 15-20 dollar an hour fast food guy: Those guys qualify for governmental aid. Since those guys are being directed via their corporate overlords to seek governmental aid, you and I are effectively paying them out of our pockets to work there anyway, and it's by design of their employers. I do not think minimum wage is a livable wage. I've done it before. It's not sustainable unless you're living in some sort of Fight Club style squalor. You can't build a safety net, and if you have an accident of some sort, you may never recover.

So, as I see it, there are four options:
- Cut those programs and risk creating an underclass that becomes desperate and dangerous when they fall into situations they can't get out of.
- Increase minimum wage to a livable amount. I've seen interesting arguments on both sides of the fence here. At least then, I know that instead of my taxes being spread out to sustain all minimum wage jobs, my money only gets spread out to minimum wage employees who's services I actually use.
- Pass some sort of law putting limits on the amount of pay the highest paid employees of a company can receive in relation to the lowest paid employees.
- Do nothing and let this continue.

What's the breaking point? You have, what, under half the Nation paying the other half entitlements and getting taxed more (figure of speech). If MIT can come up with a theory of Warp drive then why get some of their caliber to overhaul the system lol. The problem is the fear of "Change"...Xanax kicked in quicker then I thought

That's a very good question. I don't have the answer to that. I don't think that "killing all aid programs and let the chips fall where they may" is a viable one though. I don't think anyone really ENJOYS living poorly on someone else's dime. I believe that humans are social animals, and have the need to be socially worthwhile. I think that if the disadvantaged thought there was some way they could ever wind up in a stable, even middle class environment, and were taught how to achieve that goal, they would strive for it. I have been accused of being naive though.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Examples please?

How about that old chestnut we've been chewing over for so long, voter ID laws? And let's discuss it this time without even referencing race (since I know we totally disagree about that). Even taking proponents of voter ID laws at their word that these laws are designed to protect elections (rather than marginalize the poor), they are still designed for a default population (those who have state-issed ID) and not for others.

How on earth are "they designed" for a default population?

Jesus, when will you stop "talking in those terms" and look at the Blacks, Women, Beiber-lovers as simply fething Americans with diverse backgrounds.

I swear, discussing the following terms: "x-privilege", "default population", and whathaveyous perpetuate these angsts between these groups.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
Getting a state-issued ID is difficult...how?

Not the point. It's still a policy that disproportionately effects certain classes of people.

Not all obstacles or advantages are huge, but they are cumulative.

How so?

The poor uses government welfare programs much more than the middle/rich class... no? Because... they're poor and as such need help.

As such, when registering for these said benefits.. you know, to fething eat... get power for their house... get reduced rates on their gas bills. They must show a state (or federal) ID at the time for registering these programs.

How come we never really hear about people complaining for the need to ID themselves to be able to get on foodstamp programs, housing assistance, utility assistance???

Wouldn't you consider having heat, putting food on the table, having a roof over your head a much more immedidate importance than voting?

And yet, when election season comes, it's somehow more difficult to show your ID at the polls, than it is to show your ID when registering for welfare help???

O.o

Seriously dude.

 whembly wrote:
I swear, discussing the following terms: "x-privilege", "default population", and whathaveyous perpetuate these angsts between these groups.

Not really. Acknowledging reality is the necessary first step to addressing it. But that line of thought (similar to the "let's just be colorblind" nonsense) is a very common defense mechanism.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I swear, discussing the following terms: "x-privilege", "default population", and whathaveyous perpetuate these angsts between these groups.

Not really. Acknowledging reality is the necessary first step to addressing it. But that line of thought (similar to the "let's just be colorblind" nonsense) is a very common defense mechanism.

So, Affirmiative Actions isn't enough?

Scholarships by race isn't enough?

When is it enough?

What's the endgame?

Also: Do you subscribe to "White Guilt"?

 whembly wrote:

How come we never really hear about people complaining for the need to ID themselves to be able to get on foodstamp programs, housing assistance, utility assistance???

People have complained about the need to present ID for as long as it has been a requirement, and as such it is no longer news. Hell, my grandmother still complains about it.

The requirement regarding voting is news because, unlike access to most state services and privileges, voting is an implied right.

 whembly wrote:

Wouldn't you consider having heat, putting food on the table, having a roof over your head a much more immedidate importance than voting?

You don't generally need a photo ID to verify your identity when apply for foodstamps, housing assistance, or utility assistance.

 dogma wrote:
=whembly 581085 6566839 05660003dd83ed7c53ae82ba11bd5dd1.jpg]
Wouldn't you consider having heat, putting food on the table, having a roof over your head a much more immedidate importance than voting?

You don't generally need a photo ID to verify your identity when apply for foodstamps, housing assistance, or utility assistance.

 whembly wrote:

You know what I find funny?

That you're conflating photo ID requirements with general ID requirements?


Also, you have not yet addressed the distinction between voting (an implied right) and things like foodstamps.

 whembly wrote:

The fact of the matter is that you need valid photo identification to establish your identity in order to qualify for government programs as well.

After a quick perusal of your links I saw no evidence of a need to provided valid, photo ID.

The problem with admitting that white privilege might actually exist is that you would also have to admit that there is a chance that your own success might not be 100% because of your awesome bootstrapping skills...

 d-usa wrote:
The problem with admitting that white privilege might actually exist is that you would also have to admit that there is a chance that your own success might not be 100% because of your awesome bootstrapping skills...

Define success please.

Everyone definition of "Success" is different Trex. My success will not in your perception meet your viewpoint.

 d-usa wrote:
The problem with admitting that white privilege might actually exist is that you would also have to admit that there is a chance that your own success might not be 100% because of your awesome bootstrapping skills...

I'd classify the problem as having to buy into a bunch of social justice warrior bs.

A lot of what is perceived as racism by both the perpetrators and those that accuse is actually stereotypes associated with certain cultural traits and social standing. White nationalists who use the 'proof' of blacks being more likely to commit crime by crime figures would ignore both the poverty levels of ghettos and also any institutionalised profiling used by law enforcement with arrests and treatment of minorities. Also this has a knock on effect with feelings of mistrust between communities and the police which will only further antagonise relations between the two.
We all will stereotype to an extent, it's quite human; but the point is not erasing all stereotypes for the sake of political correctness, but realising how ridiculous they are in the first place as an indicator of catagorising all human beings and laughing about it. Modern civilisation has proven that race is absolutely no guarantee of behaviour but culture and up-bringing most definitely is.
I am not responsible for how others treat me based on my race and gender; but if we all just judged on merit and character things would be a lot smoother for everyone.

 Siberiandreamer wrote:
A lot of what is perceived as racism by both the perpetrators and those that accuse is actually stereotypes associated with certain cultural traits and social standing. White nationalists who use the 'proof' of blacks being more likely to commit crime by crime figures would ignore both the poverty levels of ghettos and also any institutionalised profiling used by law enforcement with arrests and treatment of minorities. Also this has a knock on effect with feelings of mistrust between communities and the police which will only further antagonise relations between the two.
We all will stereotype to an extent, it's quite human; but the point is not erasing all stereotypes for the sake of political correctness, but realising how ridiculous they are in the first place as an indicator of catagorising all human beings and laughing about it. Modern civilisation has proven that race is absolutely no guarantee of behaviour but culture and up-bringing most definitely is.
I am not responsible for how others treat me based on my race and gender; but if we all just judged on merit and character things would be a lot smoother for everyone.

Well put.

 trexmeyer wrote:
What I am sure of is that there a great deal of angry, antisocial young white males with misplaced hatred toward African-American males for being perceived superior athletes and having superior genetics

Wait what? That sounds way off the mark. If anything, being good at sport is one of the few positive stereotypes black people have. Black athletes are usually highly respected and admired. If there is misplaced hatred towards black people then it probably stems from the inherent difficulty in understanding how complex socioeconomic conditions, and institutionalized racism have led to black people being way overrepresented in the prison population... Or something like that.

Causality aside, if all people see around them is black youths 'busin caps' committing crimes, black kids on youtube playing 'knock-out', and black neighborhoods being dangerous run-down ghettos, then they are going to draw their own conclusions.

I'm not saying racists are right by any measure, in fact my personal opinion is that they are very wrong. But I don't mind admitting that it took me a lot of soul searching to get there, because it directly contradicts my personal experience growing up in a big city, where it seemed like every mugger was black, and every bad neighborhood was black, and that many black people are way more racist than white people and unashamedly so. I remember being in at a rave in Hackney where the MC was just shouting out "kill the white man!" repeatedly over the microphone, like it was a normal thing (Hackney if you don't know it is one of the areas devastated during the 2011 riots, and has quite a high immigrant population).

I'm happy to accept anyone on an individual person by person basis. But I do at least require that they don't hate (or consider me genetically inferior?!?) because I'm white, and they don't go around mugging old ladies and invading people's homes. That isn't good PR for any race, and there isn't really any excuse for it.

 Smacks wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
What I am sure of is that there a great deal of angry, antisocial young white males with misplaced hatred toward African-American males for being perceived superior athletes and having superior genetics

Wait what? That sounds way off the mark. If anything, being good at sport is one of the few positive stereotypes black people have. Black athletes are usually highly respected and admired.

Unless you are an expat, I don't think you are really familiar with this issue. I routinely hear white males dismiss black athletes out of hand with comments such as "He's only fast/athletic/good because he's black," and then if the individual is a poor athlete it turns into, "You're black, why aren't you faster/stronger/etc?" There is a lot of resentment, but it's behind closed doors or on the internet.

The most visible example of this resentment is the excessive praise directed towards white athletes who excel or are merely above average in a sport dominated by blacks (specifically those of West African descent). When Peyton Hillis showed some promise as the first good white running back in years he became a media godsend. The same is true for Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki, but at least those two are among the best in the league at their respective specialties. It's a bit of an open secret that many (not all) white sports fan are more than happy to root for a player just because he is white.

I remember watching the 100 meter finals at the Olympics last year. All 8 finalists were black, 5 of whom were from the Caribbean. and I doubt anyone was surprised. Are you saying that black athletes dominating nearly every sport is just coincidence?

I don't think it is just a coincidence. I think there is a higher incidence of world class athletes among African Americans. And if that is the case, then maybe it just makes them less interesting. After all everyone loves an underdog. Just because people want to see a white guy win a boxing match for a change doesn't necessarily mean everyone is a racist.

If you want to see internet racism, just read through youtube comments some time...

It's alive and well.

If you're reading the comments, you're doing it wrong!

Youtube comments are so fascinating. The only place where a video with a kitten chasing its tail has arguments about American foreign intervention, or something.

 djones520 wrote:
What I was trying to say is that self destructive environment probably would have imploded, and maybe grown into something new, had we just completely left it alone. But we won't because we're human and we'll do whatever we can to help, even if it's the worse thing possible.

There's an old joke, about two socialists walking down the streets of London when they come across a beggar. The first feels for the man, and goes to give him some money, the second grabs the hand of the first - 'don't do it comrade, you'll delay the revolution!'

The joke, of course, is poking fun at the all too common idea among socialists that nothing must be done for the poor, as it would only serve to delay the revolution and the move to classless utopia.

Imagine my surprise to see that same idea being put forward here, albeit from the exact opposite end of the political spectrum.

 whembly wrote:
[

Jesus, when will you stop "talking in those terms" and look at the Blacks, Women, Beiber-lovers as simply fething Americans with diverse backgrounds.

I swear, discussing the following terms: "x-privilege", "default population", and whathaveyous perpetuate these angsts between these groups.

I'd have to agree with whembly I don't get the whole obsession with seperating people in the US of A . I can't think of a time i called someone an asian Australian or an indigenous Australian as a general term. They are all Australians. though I must admit i do call aborigines abodigines (thank you Zoolander)

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
What I am sure of is that there a great deal of angry, antisocial young black males with misplaced hatred toward white and asian males for being perceived superior graduates and earners in most fields

Wait what? That sounds way off the mark. If anything, being smart and successful is one of the few positive stereotypes white and asian people have. White scientists, businessmen and engineers are usually highly respected and admired.

Unless you are an expat, I don't think you are really familiar with this issue. I routinely hear black males dismiss white businessmen out of hand with comments such as "He's only successful/good because he's white," and then if the individual is a poor earner it turns into, "You're white, why aren't you richer?" There is a lot of resentment, but it's behind closed doors or on the internet.

The most visible example of this resentment is the excessive praise directed towards black scientists/businessmen who excel or are merely above average in an arena dominated by whites and asians (specifically those of Northern European/Eastern Asian descent). It's a bit of an open secret that many (not all) black consumers are more than happy to root for a business owner just because he is black.

 Smacks wrote:
I remember watching the Nobel prize in physics. All the winners in the last ten years were white or asian. and I doubt anyone was surprised. Are you saying that white or asian scientists dominating nearly every nobel prize award ceremony is just coincidence?

I don't think it is just a coincidence. I think there is a higher incidence of world class scientists among whites and asians. And if that is the case, then maybe it just makes them less interesting. After all everyone loves an underdog. Just because people want to see a black guy win a (real) Nobel Prize for a change doesn't necessarily mean everyone is a racist.

I was bored.

 sebster wrote:
There's an old joke, about two socialists walking down the streets of London when they come across a beggar. The first feels for the man, and goes to give him some money, the second grabs the hand of the first - 'don't do it comrade, you'll delay the revolution!'

Reminds me of the recent softening of the embargo against Iran. I asked one of my Iranian family what he thought about it, he told me the positive side was that it would ease things a lot for Iranians, the bad thing being that this will allow the current regime to stay in place for longer.
It is not the same as the joke because he did not have any power over it, but it is still a quite similar situation.